14 U.S. Code § 573 - Preliminary development and demonstration

(a) In General.— The Commandant shall ensure that developmental test and evaluation, operational test and evaluation, life-cycle cost estimates, and the development and demonstration requirements applied by this chapter to acquisition projects and programs are met to confirm that the projects or programs meet the requirements identified in the mission-analysis and affordability assessment prepared under section
571(a)(2), the operational requirements developed under section
572(a)(1) and the following development and demonstration objectives:

(1)To demonstrate that the design, manufacturing, and production solution is based upon a stable, producible, and cost-effective product design.

(3)To ensure that the product design is mature enough to commit to full production and deployment.

(b) Tests and Evaluations.—

(1) In general.— The Commandant shall ensure that the Coast Guard conducts developmental tests and evaluations and operational tests and evaluations of a capability or asset and the subsystems of the capability or asset in accordance with the master plan prepared for the capability or asset under section
572(d)(1).

(2) Use of third parties.— The Commandant shall ensure that the Coast Guard uses independent third parties with expertise in testing and evaluating the capabilities or assets and the subsystems of the capabilities or assets being acquired to conduct developmental tests and evaluations and operational tests and evaluations whenever the Coast Guard lacks the capability to conduct the tests and evaluations required by a master plan.

(3) Communication of safety concerns.— The Commandant shall require that safety concerns identified during developmental or operational tests and evaluations or through independent or Government-conducted design assessments of capabilities or assets and subsystems of capabilities or assets to be acquired by the Coast Guard shall be communicated as soon as practicable, but not later than 30 days after the completion of the test or assessment event or activity that identified the safety concern, to the program manager for the capability or asset and the subsystems concerned and to the Chief Acquisition Officer.

(4) Reporting of safety concerns.— Any safety concerns that have been reported to the Chief Acquisition Officer for an acquisition program or project shall be reported by the Commandant to the appropriate congressional committees at least 90 days before the award of any contract or issuance of any delivery order or task order for low, initial, or full-rate production of the capability or asset concerned if they will remain uncorrected or unmitigated at the time such a contract is awarded or delivery order or task order is issued. The report shall include a justification for the approval of that level of production of the capability or asset before the safety concerns are corrected or mitigated. The report shall also include an explanation of the actions that will be taken to correct or mitigate the safety concerns, the date by which those actions will be taken, and the adequacy of current funding to correct or mitigate the safety concerns.

(5) Asset already in low, initial, or full-rate production.— If operational test and evaluation of a capability or asset already in low, initial, or full-rate production identifies a safety concern with the capability or asset or any subsystems of the capability or asset not previously identified during developmental or operational test and evaluation, the Commandant shall—

(A)notify the program manager and the Chief Acquisition Officer of the safety concern as soon as practicable, but not later than 30 days after the completion of the test and evaluation event or activity that identified the safety concern; and

(B)notify the Chief Acquisition Officer and include in such notification—

(i)an explanation of the actions that will be taken to correct or mitigate the safety concern in all capabilities or assets and subsystems of the capabilities or assets yet to be produced, and the date by which those actions will be taken;

(ii)an explanation of the actions that will be taken to correct or mitigate the safety concern in previously produced capabilities or assets and subsystems of the capabilities or assets, and the date by which those actions will be taken; and

(iii)an assessment of the adequacy of current funding to correct or mitigate the safety concern in capabilities or assets and subsystems of the capabilities or assets and in previously produced capabilities or assets and subsystems.

(c) Technical Certification.—

(1) In general.— The Commandant shall ensure that any Level 1 or Level 2 acquisition project or program is certified by the technical authority of the Coast Guard after review by an independent third party with capabilities in the mission area, asset, or particular asset component.

(2) TEMPEST testing.— The Commandant shall—

(A)cause all electronics on all aircraft, surface, and shore capabilities and assets that require TEMPEST certification and that are delivered after the date of enactment of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010 to be tested in accordance with TEMPEST standards and communications security (comsec) standards by an independent third party that is authorized by the Federal Government to perform such testing; and

(B)certify that the assets meet all applicable TEMPEST requirements.

(3) Cutter classification.—

(A) In general.— The Commandant shall cause each cutter, other than a National Security Cutter, acquired by the Coast Guard and delivered after the date of enactment of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010 to be classed by the American Bureau of Shipping before final acceptance.

(4) Other vessels.— The Commandant shall cause the design and construction of each National Security Cutter, other than National Security Cutters 1, 2, and 3, to be assessed by an independent third party with expertise in vessel design and construction certification.

(5) Aircraft airworthiness.— The Commandant shall cause all aircraft and aircraft engines acquired by the Coast Guard and delivered after the date of enactment of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010 to be assessed for airworthiness by an independent third party with expertise in aircraft and aircraft engine certification before final acceptance.

2012—Subsec. (c)(3)(B). Pub. L. 112–213struck out subpar. (B). Text read as follows: “Not later than December 31, 2011, and biennially thereafter, the Commandant shall provide a report to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate identifying which, if any, Coast Guard cutters that have been issued a certificate of classification by the American Bureau of Shipping have not been maintained in class and detailing the reasons why they have not been maintained in class.”

“(1) Multiyear authority.—In fiscal year 2013 and each fiscal year thereafter, the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating may enter into, in accordance with section
2306b of title
10, United States Code, a multiyear contract for the procurement of Coast Guard National Security Cutters and Government-furnished equipment associated with the National Security Cutter program.

“(2) Limitation.—The Secretary may not enter into a contract under paragraph (1) until the date that is 30 days after the date the Secretary submits to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives a certification that the Secretary has made, with respect to the contract, each of the findings specified under section
2306b(a) of title
10, United States Code, and has done so in accordance with paragraph (3) of this subsection.

“(3) Determination of substantial savings.—For purposes of this section, in conducting an analysis with respect to substantial savings under section
2306b(a)(1) of title
10, United States Code, the Secretary—

“(A) may not limit the analysis to a simple percentage-based metric; and

“(B) shall employ a full-scale analysis of cost avoidance—

“(i) based on a multiyear procurement; and

“(ii) taking into account the potential benefit any accrued savings might have for future shipbuilding programs if the cost avoidance savings were subsequently utilized for further ship construction.

“(b) Certificate To Operate.—The Commandant of the Coast Guard may not certify a sixth National Security Cutter as Ready for Operations before the Commandant has—

“(1) submitted to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives program execution plans detailing—

“(A) how the first 3 National Security Cutters will achieve the goal of 225 days away from homeport in fiscal years following the completion of the Structural Enhancement Drydock Availability of the first 2 National Security Cutters; and

“(B) increased aerial coverage to support National Security Cutter operations; and

“(2) awarded a contract for detailed design and construction for the Offshore Patrol Cutter.”

LII has no control over and does not endorse any external Internet site that contains links to or references LII.